Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday March 06, 2009 @12:20PM
from the heavy-to-carry-around dept.

Al notes a story in Technology Review reporting on a CMU study (now over a month old) claiming that the Volt doesn't make economic sense, and GM's response. The study suggests that hybrids with large batteries offering up to 40 miles of range before an on-board generator kicks in simply cost too much for the gas savings to work out (PDF). Al writes: "Unsurprisingly, GM disputes the claims, saying 'Our battery team is already starting work on new concepts that will further decrease the cost of the Volt battery pack quite substantially in a second-generation Volt pack.' Interestingly, however, GM admits that the tax credits for plug-in hybrids will be crucial to making the volt successful. Without those credits, would an electric vehicle like the Volt be viable?"

How can it make economic sense? I'd much rather have a VW Sharan that gets 7 and still gets 40+ to the gallon. Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no sense instead of using cheap, proven turbo-diesel technologies? Why can't I buy a car that will ride 7 and get 40+ to the gallon in the US? I'm baffled...

Once again, Slashdot does its best to continue ignorance by leaving out the core criticism of the study: that the study's authors assume a battery pack price of $1000 per kilowatt hour, and that's not even close to they cost today, let alone 5-10 years from now. And that's hardly their only mistake. I'll list their assumptions [cmu.edu], and make a few quick comments on them:

* A 2004 Prius with varying size packs* They upgrade the size of the motor to be sufficient to operate as series, but still keep the parallel configuration (why...?)* 52 kW motor (70hp), yet weighs 40kg (huh...? The Tesla Roadster does 185kW with a 31kg motor)* The main assumption that 1kg of batteries requires an additional 1kg of structure (Um.. really?). They also test 0kg and 2kg per 1kg of battery mass.* Li-ion (unspecified chemistry). 100Wh/mi -- similar to LiP and some spinels -- and a 25% packaging weight penalty (on top of the 1kg weight for every 1kg of batteries)* Only 50% depth of discharge (i.e., they're only using half of their pack)* Charging at $0.11/kWh (US residential average)* Gasoline at $3.00/gal (probably a reasonable long-term value)* Assumption of $1,000/kWh battery cost (Um, no. I can get Thunderskys at non-bulk rates for a fraction of that. I can almost get A123s at non-bulk rates for that. The Th!nk's pack is $500/kWh, and they think they can cut that in half with production rates of several hundred thousand per year. Conventional li-ion, like Tesla uses, is ~$300/kWh currently. In short... no.). They justify their number by pointing out that it's cheaper than the original price of the Prius's battery pack (ignoring that small HEV battery pack prices don't scale linearly to BEV or PHEV packs or linear with capacity in general)* GHG emissions of the grid are assumed to be fixed over time (Um, no)* Vehicle lifespan of 12 years (the average vehicle *on the road* today is nearly 10 years old, and that number is increasing, so... no)* 12,500 miles/year (reasonable)* Vehicle base purchase cost, excluding the battery pack, of $17,600* Assuming by default no carbon tax, both on electricity and gasoline, but considering it under alternative scenarios* No tax credits assumed* No battery replacement (in the base case; an alternative scenario includes replacement)* A 5% "consumer discount rate", No clue what that is, but they state that the higher it is, the less competitive PHEVs are. So it's some sort of penalty. (Perhaps purchase interest rate on the auto loan? If so, too expensive.)

In short: stupid assumptions in, stupid results out. Note this paragraph that they just skim over:

Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery's physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.

In short: "If we pick more reasonable numbers, PHEVs are great. But with the bad numbers we picked, they're not."

Before you get all proud about the 40MPG rating, please note that a US Gallon differs from an Imperial Gallon.

A US Gallon is smaller, which makes British mileage ratings appear inflated compared to US ratings.

Also, US residents can buy a Diesel VW Jetta, which seats 5 comfortably, and (legitimately) gets 40+MPG. They sell like hotcakes, although the total number imported is still somewhat small. I've driven one -- it's quite nice. Almost impossible to distinguish from its petrol-powered cousin.

Of course, your main point still applies: By global standards, cars sold in the US are hideously inefficient, and we have an inherent fear of diesel, thanks to the loud, smoky GM diesels of the 1980s.

Know also, that diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. A (US) gallon of gasoline has 125,000 BTU of energy, while a (US) gallon of diesel has just under 150,000 BTU. Keep this in mind when comparing the fuel economy of a diesel to that of a gasoline engine.

What's most offending is that GM *knows* how to make good turbodiesel cars, we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad. When I lived in the UK I had a Vauxhall Zafira 1.9CDTi. I loved that silly box, and it got the same mileage as the VW Sharan.

More interestingly, GM has brought the Astra over from Opel/Vauxhall and called it the Saturn Astra. Even doing the US/Imperial mileage conversions, the most efficient Astra sold in the US gets worse mileage than the least efficient die

Uh, no. Other than possibly a badge you would never know you are behind a modern VW diesel. Since the US switched to ultra low sulphur diesel in the fall of 2006 you have been able to get the modern diesels that actually have LESS tailpipe emissions then the typical gasoline car. Personally I like the idea of turbodiesels but what I'm personally waiting for is the Ford Eccoboost 2L I4, produces 250HP and 275lb/ft of torque on 87 octane and it should get phenomenal fuel

we Americans have just been brainwashed into thinking that diesel==bad

The interesting thing is that America's dislike of diesel passenger cars is in some part due to none other than GM, due to GM's horrible Oldsmobile diesels of the 1980s. Instead of just giving GM cars a bad reputation, it gave diesel engines a bad reputation in the mind of American buyers, and American manufacturers didn't offer another diesel car after that.

1. US gasoline is lower octane than European gasoline. The Astra engine was detuned from its European spec to use the cheapest fuel here, because almost all Americans buying economy cars expect to use the default low octane fuel.

2. GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai ALL sell diesel cars outside the US. Right now only Volkswagen and Mercedes offer diesel engine cars in the US because our diesel emission standards for non-commercial vehicles are very difficult to satisfy. If you're going to find the situation "offending", be offended by the automakers like Honda and Toyota who had plenty of resources to offer diesels in the US (unlike the domestic automakers) and still failed to do it.

I don't understand why people keep saying this.. No they don't. They rate Octane differently than we do. They use Unloaded Octane reference engine values. The US uses (Loaded + Unloaded) / 2. Says so on every freaking gas pump in the US. There is typically a swing of 2 to 10 Octaine points between loaded and unloaded - thus the averaging allows for greater variability in synthetic blend possibilities while simultaneously giving a more accurate performance characteristic.

GM bought Opel in 1929 and Vauxhall in 1925. It wasn't like they just bought them out recently to acquire their new and exciting diesel technology.
I believe that they are mostly designed in Europe though, by European GM engineers.

Because diesel in the US is taxed higher than regular gasoline. Therefore, it won't make economic sense for someone to purchase a diesel engine vehicle in the US. Until the government changes that situation, diesel will remain a small niche in the consumer market.

Currently, in the US state in which I reside, diesel is $2.089/US gallon, gas (petrol for all you people who spell it "colour") is roughly $1.889/US gallon. Both prices include all applicable local, state, and federal taxes.

My 2002 VW Beetle TDI w/ 150,000 miles on it gets an average of 45 miles on a US gallon of diesel. My wife's 2006 Beetle uses petrol and gets roughly 26 MPG.

Doin' the math that's more than 70% better mileage for only 10% more money, or, to put it in a different light, I get around 630 miles per tank while she gets about 360, or, to put it another another way, diesel would have to cost almost twice as much as petrol before I started to lose money on the proposition.

Oh, and since I run diesel my car is exempt from state emissions inspections where I live, thus saving another $30-40/year.

Don't know where you are living, but down here in the south diesel is about $1 higher and always has been to my knowledge. I have family in construction and they all drive the big diesel duallies for work trucks and the major complaint from all of them is the higher cost of diesel down here.

I don't know if it is true or not but a buddy that works for the state told me that it is because American roads, and roads in the south in particular are made very badly compared to Europe with too thin a bed laid down before the asphalt is poured which causes large vehicles (like diesel big rigs) to bust up the roads much quicker than cars. So instead of building the roads correctly we simply tax the hell out of diesel and patch the hell out of the roads. I know here in AR our freeways have two states: ones that have potholes you can bury a dog in, and ones with potholes you can bury a cow in.

My buddy who just got back from doing a stretch in the Army in Europe was shocked at how shitty American roads are compared to what he got used to in Europe. He said there simply isn't a comparison. So maybe if we actually built our roads correctly we wouldn't overtax the diesel and would actually have roads that last. But a politician give up taxing? Nah, never happen.

Cheap, proven technologies are still steps down a dead end road. We need to take a step back in order to start moving forward again. Electric vehicles are that path forward. An economically viable method for providing electric vehicles has not revealed itself yet, however the potential has been seen. The problem is that there is no reason to produce the new technology to make them viable unless electric cars are present to create the demand, and electric cars won't be viable until the new technology is present. So, what we have is a deadlock.

The question becomes "How do we break the deadlock?". This is a situation where the market as it exists today will not provide a solution in an acceptable timeframe, so we must consider external forces. Providing incentives to "early adopters" will be necessary to pull enough electric vehicles into the public to create a demand for the infrastructure. The problem of imperfect power storage is being mitigated by allowing for flexible power sources (i.e. onboard generators).

The Volt is a transitional technology, not the end result. GM can't say that though - after all, who wants to be the guinea pig with something as expensive and important as a car?

I'm not sure if you are trolling, daft, or just asking a legitimate serious question...

> How can it make economic sense?You mean like how can the government afford to "bail out" a failing business model of the very same businesses that were against electric vehicles??

>Why on earth are we trying to build electric cars that make no senseRight, we don't need sense like far less pollution, safer, stilumate R&D, etc.

> I'm baffled...Here's a clue. Short-term last-millennium greed and thinking needs to be replaced with long term sustainability.Who Killed The Electric Car [google.com]

and

"...During the Cold War era of the 1950s and early 1960s, General Motors (GM) urged patriotic U.S. citizens to "see the USA in your Chevrolet."Such advertisements on the part of the automobile industry served to seduce North Americans, as well as Australians, away from what was once a relatively well-developed mass transportation system that included passenger trains, numerous intercity bus lines, and extensive urban and interurban trolley or tram lines. Indeed, a consortium, called National City Lines, consisting of General Motors, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company had spent $9 million by 1950 to obtain control of street railway companies in sixteen states and converted them to less efficient GM buses. The companies were sold to operators who signed contracts specifying that they would buy GM equipment. National City Lines in the 1940s began buying up and scrapping parts of Pacific Electric, the world's largest interurban electric rail system, which by 1945 served 110 million passengers in 56 smog-free Southern California cities. Eleven hundred miles of Pacific Electric's track were torn up, and the system went out of service in 1961, as Southern California commuters came to rely primarily on freeways (Flink 1973:220).Unfortunately, Henry Huntington, the owner of Pacific Electric, used his interurban trolley company more as a scheme for promoting his real estate endeavors than providing a public service and often alienated citizens in various ways, including in his failure to provide lines that connected suburbs to each other as opposed to strictly city centers (Bottles 1992). A similar process in which a consortium of road interests colluded to destroy efficient trolley or trams systems occurred in numerous cities throughout the United States and Australia (Goddard 1994; Davison 2004).

In the 1950s, with the assistance of the Eisenhower administration, the development of an interstate highway system resulted in enormous profits for corporate interests and benefits to supportive politicians, while hindering the development of efficient public transportation, and thereby forcing the general public to purchase and use cars for transportation (Leavitt 1970). Indeed, Lewis Mumford (1963) argued that the federally funded highway programs of the 1950s contributed to the creation of a "one-dimensional transportation system." According to Crawford,

The Interstates gave truckers a subsidized route network that allowed them to compete successfully with railroads despite the labor and energy inefficiency of trucking. It also gave real estate developers the high-speed arteries leading to downtown that made large-scale suburban sprawl possible (Crawford 2000:88).

A powerful lobby consisting of the automobile industry, the American Automobile Association, petroleum companies, and trucking companies, continues to pose a barrier to the development of an effective public transportation system in the United States. Whereas heavy trucks contribute more than 95 percent of the highway deterioration in this country, trucking companies pay only 29 percent of the highway bill (Freund and Marti

Ha! Love that. Basically he is saying that yes, he does see a need for a larger car. But he'll let other people take care of that for him. I'm sure they are all just totally happy to provide practicality for him while he buys fun cars. Wish he were my friend. Guess they like the role of driving miss daisey.

His point is that he needs a truck so rarely that on the few occasions he needs one, he can borrow or rent. There's no reason to use a van-size vehicle so one person can commute.

I do quite well with an S2000, and the U-Haul literally up the street will rent a van for four hours for $20 plus mileage. So once or twice a year I rent the U-Haul and the rest of the time I don't worry about driving a large vehicle.

But your S2000 gets the same mileage as many a 'large vehicle', so it's rather a moot point. It's not like you're doing the environment any favors by shunning SUVs in favor of a sports car.
That said, I drive an RX-8 in the summer and love every minute of it. But I have no illusions that it's a more environmentally conscious vehicle than, say, a Ford Windstar or Expedition.

The GM response is that they understand that whole "make economic sense" statement. Like some foreign gibbersh to them.

Ladies and gentlemen of Slashdot, GM would certainly want you to believe that the Volt makes sense. And they make a good case. But I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca drives a Toyota Prius. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to drive a hybrid, carpooling with a bunch of environmentalists? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this post? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this post! It does not make sense! If the battery pack does not fit, you must acquit!

As in NOT releasing a diesel engine here. They're ALL over Europe. Every company that sells vehicles in Europe sells a Manual Transmission Diesel vehicle.

VW has a Polo that puts the the "economy" vehicles they advertise in the US to shame. I get a chuckle when ever they come on the TV with "Up to an awesome 35 MPG". I can't get less than 40MPG unless I'm towing a trailer. And I've done 60 MPG when trying.

Gen II BioDiesel is GTL [wikipedia.org]. Meaning you can make it from ANYTHING. It's what Germans used to survive WW II.

So did I back in 1992 with my gas-powered Honda Civic VX. Sure it was a tin-can, but if fuel efficiency were in higher demand, the auto makers would make more fuel efficient cars. However, most drivers would rather get 20-30mpg and have in excess of 150hp as opposed to the 60mpg and 90hp of my Honda Civic. People seem to neglect the fact that horsepower and mpg are generally inversely related.

Do they all cost too damned much and break down constantly like every other American vehicle I've ever owned? If so,no thanks. Most of my buds from school have been getting Kia cars, and after riding in one I understood why. Rode REAL nice and was very comfy. Got a fully loaded one for $16,500 and when one had a transmission trouble before work they APOLOGIZED to him, brought him out a brand new one to use as a loaner to his house, and brought his car TO HIM at work the next day on his lunch break and picke

Oh, please! GM doesn't make a gas-sipper. Never have. Over the past 20 years I've tried in vain to buy a good fuel-efficient car from the Big Three. The only things any of them have made that satisfied my efficiency standards have been cheap, poorly-made boxes with few amenities (e.g. Ford Festiva) that deliberately pushed the comfort-loving American buyer toward their more expensive (read "profitable") models.

Personally, I call anything > 25 mpg a gas sipper. Yes, their discount cars are garbage, and of course they are going to try and push cars with a bigger profit margin, business exists for profit. My only suggestion to GM would be less plastic and velcro, more solidly made cars that you cant take apart the same way you unbutton a shirt.

No, my standards are just different, I like to be able to drive fast, I could care less whether I get an extra 15-20 mpg. Especially since the cost of a new car that gets great mileage would not save me enough money to warrant the purchase of that vehicle. I'll stick with my late eighties Japanese sports car with 100,000 miles on it, my last one went to 400k before she blew.

Sure, it might cost too much, but hopefully enough rich, environmentalists will buy it, that the price will come down so that it will be economically feasible, and affordable for the rest of us. They can use the same selling model as the Tesla Roadster.

CD players were $1000 when they first came out. Only the rich had them. The price went down and down until today you can pick one up for $5.

DVD players -- exact same deal. Blue rays were $1200, now you can get one for $180. As more people buy them, they will eventually come down to the ~$50 price point a decent DVD player is at now.

Electric cars have been lingering at the high point because no significant car has been rough to market. The Tesla and the Volt appear to be the firsts going there. We need to take the first steps if we are ever to migrate from oil to electric.

Well, you cant really sell clean air. Water on the other hand, some are paying more per gallon of water than per gallon of gas. As far as wind farms go, almost everyone wants them, but no one wants to be near them or have to see them.

It doesnt make a lot of sense to me either, but wind power has usually had a "not in my backyard" policy follow it around. People are for it, until they have to look at it (or listen to it, I hear they are pretty loud). For example, look up RFK Jr. and his wind farm off Cape Cod debacle. All about wind power, until they decide a good place for it is out in the ocean which is visible to him from his beach mansion, then he uses every connection he has to try and stop it. We have termed this kind of situation in Garage Logic as "windmilling", very similar to the local NPR station in MN being a strong advocate for a light-rail system, but then they find out the plan has the tracks going past their station, and now they are very much against light-rail.

And you could go completely air pollution free by using exclusively nuclear power too...
My point was mainly, TODAY using a plug in hybrid adds to air pollution by using mainly unoptimized coal produced electricity, compared to a very clean diesel, which is the alternative discussed.

It might not make the most economic sense *TODAY* without tax credits but putting the money into the technology being developed for battery and hybrids will make cheaper more efficient cars available in the future. The main cost right now is the battery pack but with more mainstream production as well as further research, this should come down in cost (higher capacity / cheaper batteries in future cars).

Considering that GM is surviving on taxpayer money right now, and is begging for more, I don't see how GM has any credibility on determining if anything makes Economic Sense.
Maybe the Green Movement can buy the technology off GM, and produce the car themselves. Let's see if that is successful.

that also depends on why gas is $4.84 a gallon. If it is taxed to that amount, then that tax will need replaced, assuming the battery car is just as damaging to infrastructure funded by those taxes (possibly more, if they are heavier, require bigger electric grid, and more power generation.)If it is price gouging, and you can keep that gouging out of electric, then sure.

Yes, and I bought one (a Toyota Prius). Of course I did that in Fall 2007 before the summer spike, because I value efficiency over origin.

The problem is that today in PA, the price of gas (this afternoon) is $1.83/gal x (1.4086 pound / $) x (gal / 3.7854 L) = 0.68 GPB / L (you have a 33% markup in taxes over our taxes!) Dealers today have more Priuses on the lots than they know what to do with, because people won't pay the $28,000 price tag for a 40% increase in mpg. At current prices, it's cheaper to pay $12-15,000 for a compact car at 30 mpg and eat the difference in fuel.

And that's what I see GM is up against. They are going to pop out a car that I'm sure will start at $30,000 for a compact car and go up to $40,000 with options (the gas/hybrid Prius MSRP is about $25,000 base). You won't have liquid fuel costs, since the fuel shows up on your electric bill, but it's still $0.0729/kW (that's from Exelon/PECO's web site for Residential rates). Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] that the Volt's battery capacity is 16 kWh, (wow, Wiki's cost estimates go from $35-40,000, only 30 with tax subsidies), with an effective use of 8.8 kWh. So, assuming you drive a full battery 6 days a week, 4 weeks a month, that's 6 x 4 x 8.8 x 0.0729 = $15.39/month to fuel a car, not bad! But what's harder to estimate is that your monthly loan payments are probably $300 higher... so that's where your gas savings go.

...is that 10 years ago GM was telling us exactly that about the EV1, and we (the people who wanted one) were saying "but it's awesome, why are you telling us we don't want one?" and they were saying "there's no demand, it's not cost effective, it's terrible anyway".

Damn CARB for crumbling and allowing any car with a slightly larger battery that can crank itself along with its starter motor to count as a "low emissions vehicle".

The primary reason GM decided not to go into even limited production came from the dealers who serviced EV1s. They didn't break down. No service revenue during the lease, of course, but the writing was on the wall. EV1s would starve the service department.

Wait until true elecrtics start to gain market share. The service needs will be much lower, and the dealer network will find their service revenue dropping. Unless, of course, the makers install some planned maintena

Yea, it doesn't make economic sense. GM knows they are going to lose money on every Volt that rolls off the assembly line. Thats not the whole story though. They need a new image for the brand, and they have pinned that image to the Volt. Forward thinking, efficient, and revolutionary in the auto industry is the idea right now for the Volt. Them going out of business might hinder their cause. But, then again, its their own damn fault for behaving like asses for 30+ years. Seriously, they may have made money of trucks and Hummers, but they were certainly not innovative or groundbreaking in their designs. Their overall structure was hosed for so long, its hard to see what restructuring they are gonna do to recover.

There are tons of people working on better electric storage system technology. This makes it sound like they are doing the engineering on their own.

Look here [google.com] and this one [stanford.edu] is really interesting IMO.

When they get a breakthrough on high capacity systems it will make a lot of things possible that currently are not, not just cars. It is the battery technology that really puts the hobbles on generating your own electricity at home. Well, that and solar collector technology as well as HOA restrictions etc.

If I could get tax breaks to install a 95%+ self sufficiency system I'd do it in the blink of an eye. Having an electric car on top of that would be even better. I would like a nice little commuter car or two; 40 mile range is great if it will also support solar trickle charging while parked etc.

With an initial investment, I could become 95% free of the grid... well, if I could do that, I'm all in... big time.

I bet the same thing could have been said about the Prius during it's development phase. GM could always offer the Volt for lease like the Honda FCX, another car probably even more expensive to be economically feasible at this time, not to mention that hydrogen stations are few and far between.

GM has made tons of stupid mistakes, and frankly they deserve to be in the situation their in for it. On the other hand, the Volt is actually ingenious and I believe a more logical application of a hybrid powertrain than anything else currently on the road. I think it's cool that, like in diesel trains, the gasoline engine generates the electricity which powers the electric motor which in turn motivates the vehicle.

And for a change, I think it looks nicer than either the Prius or the new Insight. Hopefully, GM will be in business long enough for the Volt to see production. I do acknowledge that the risk in this car being too expensive is that enough people won't be able to buy for it to help GM in any meaningful way.

The coolest part about the engine design is that if your really just running an engine as a generator, you can do some very, very neat things. Like put in whatever you want as a generator, like Diesel, or Hydrogen, or even a Mr. Fusion. And in the case of traditional engines, you can be just like a train, and optimize the crap out of an engine to be as efficient as possible in a given, limited RPM range.

Some already do. Many(almost all?) diesel trains are really diesel/electric. Trucking companies are getting electric assists motors that are powered by electricity generated when idling at the dock or in slow traffic.

You do need some storage though. That, and how powerful an engine you can fit before displacing the ICE, are the limiting factors.

I'm not a huge fan of this technology replacing the existing infraustructure (gas powered vehicles) yet. But only because of energy density in the fuel, not what fuel it is. And these vehicles do have a niche market -- must be about as frightening as Apple is to Microsoft (oh, wait... that's not a fair comparison. Apple might actually be double-digits now). But as the technology develops, and the energy density problem is solved, gas-powered vehicles will go the way of the dinosaur./tongue in cheek

Recently my car got crushed by stuff falling off the roof of a business. So I've been the market for a new car. I looked at toyota between the Corola and the Prius. Both are similar size, but the Prius gets about 10 miles more to the gallon...for $6000 more.

I did the back of the envelope calculations and there was no way that I'd make up the $6000 price difference in the time that I am likely to own the vehicle. Even if gas goes back to USD 4.00 a gallon.

It doesn't make sense, right now. Right this second. But last time I checked they didn't have it in any showrooms yet, so that point is moot. Just because a global economic meltdown happened that made driving a gas-guzzling GM make sense for approx 6-12 more months, doesn't mean GM should bet the future of its company on gas prices staying low. That's basically what they've been doing. If gas prices stay low it will be because the economy is horrible, and GM will go out of business because no one buys their trucks. If gas prices rise GM will go out of business because they still don't build vehicles that anyone will want to buy at $6/gallon of gas.

The Volt is the ONLY thing GM is doing that makes the tiniest bit of sense. For goodness sakes, they released a passenger car hybrid that costs about the same as a prius, but gets about the same gas mileage as a minivan.

The engine has an oversized starter motor and a 36V battery pack in the spare wheel well. At a stop, the motor shuts down and is restarted in 500ms when the driver presses the acclerator pedal. Apparently, the Belt-Alternator-Starter [wikipedia.org] system also can kick in and add a power boost to help with accleration, and in the city can improve MPG by 10-20% Interesting concept, and saves gas, but hybrid? Not by a mile. At least not IMHO.

But GM will claim it, and plenty of people will buy it. It does save gas, this is good. But it is an example of the slow, painful, scratching-and-clawing approach Detroit is taking towards hybrids.

I'm not very hopeful for an alternative fuel either. My personal choice is some form of ultracapacitor [gizmag.com]. A capacitor makes a lot more sense than a battery; quick recharge, fewer chemicals hopefully, lots of available current hopefully. Still got the issue of the catastrophic release of energy if the capacitor got damaged, but batteries blow up too.

I'n not hopeful we are gong to see ultracapacitors within 10 years. A long time to wait.

I liken many of these new technologies to those ripoff infomercials about losing weight.

"If you take this Pill, you will lose all the weight you want!"

Its the same as industry saying, buy this new technology car and be as wasteful as before!

As anybody that has half a brain will tell you the secret to losing weight is simple, it is a lifestyle change. Eat less food, eat better food when you do, and be more active.

Same can be said about our current dilemma. You want to have cleaner air, and help the environment, etc... Well here is how you do it: Its called walking. Alternative crazy machines like "Bikes". Also the concept of "Mass Transportation", etc... This isn't new technology, its called being responsible. Sure new technologies help, and sure they can do great good, but don't believe the BS that the auto companies are trying to "sell" for one second. Because that is exactly right, they all they are interesting is in selling and the status quo. They want eveyone to buy one of their products, or two even. If it wears out, but two more. The fact that the total cost of ownership in terms of pollution etc, is actually higher then proven efficient old technologies doesn't matter. Its about PR, hype, and selling product.

If you are really interested in the environment, clean air, etc... try walking to work, or biking, or taking a bus, or train, etc... Buy a house or rent close to where you work. Try not to be wasteful in anything you do. The simple basic things you do are likely way more effective than anything else.

GM has no choice at this point. They have taken so much government cheese that they will build whatever they are told to, no matter the cost.

That said, as much as I liked and wanted a Prius, the numbers did not add up. I could get a Fit that averages 38/41 on my commute for $10,000 less than a Prius that averages 45/47mpg on my commute. The Prius no longer has a tax subsidy and 10 grand is a huge nut. I went for the cash in hand.

My VW Rabbit in high school got 60mpg, and my friends' Civics and CRX's got 40+ in the 1980's....why do even small 4cyl cars get such bad mileage today? Is it just the weight of added safety features?

At the current gas price at about $2.25 here in the L.A. area, the choice currently is OPEC, not the Energizer. But at the price of fuel going over $5.00 a gallon, those cars with Battery Power will very tempting. Solar is starting to look good also, as Edison says it needs a 100 Million Dollars to give to it higher level staff as bonuses for doing such a wonderful job. Let's see, energy from the Sun and the Wind, that I can plug into at home. It's starting to look like a very straightforward solution.

I would much rather have (some diesel vehicle) that gets this (some incredible
number)

1. Please make sure your are not quoting UK gallons - they are bigger than US gallons, and
therefore get more miles.
2. Please understand that fuel efficiency measurements in Europe are quite different than in the US. The 2008 US EPA measurement methodology is much
more conservative [autobloggreen.com].

cheap (diesel)

Diesel in Europe is cheaper than gasoline only because it gets vastly preferential tax
treatment.

We have some bizarre unxplained fear and loathing for diesel in the US

It may have something to do with poor diesel history in the US, but also with health side effects. Even with ULSD, the nanoparticles are suspected contributors to pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases.

BTW, I love diesels. I love driving them, I love the torque, I love increased fuel efficiency. However, it is important to know the whole story because the other side has very good points as well.

As for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, yes, I will likely buy the new Honda Insight when it becomes available even if it costs more than a regular vehicle of the same kind, and even if I cannot recoup the extra price. I would rather pay more money for R&D into technology than drop coins into Al Qaida's collection box.

My thoughts, as well. The company is still supposed to be a profit driven company, government money or not (and I personally think they should have been allowed to go bankrupt... and I'm a huge supporter of American companies, so it's not like I'm just anti-America-Corporation or something). It's decisions like these, IMO, that make me think they should go bankrupt, too. =P They seemed to do pretty well, once upon a time, building trucks and whatnot. Nobody really liked Toyota or Nissan trucks 10 years ago, for anything heavy-duty, etc. To get into the electric/hybrid market, I think they really needed some good... well, innovation and technology. Not play a catch-up-to-Toyota/Honda game with my tax money.

If they can't afford to make it commercially viable on their own, they shouldn't look to do it on the taxpayer dime.

Long-term, I agree.

However, this is a great example of a short-term subsidy that can help jump start the process until it _is_ commercially viable on it's own.

As it stands, the cost of the environmental impact is an externality to GM and the car buyer. By making cars (such as the Volt) that can drastically lower this impact, the cost is incorporated into the purchase price. Especially being new technology, this will initially have a much higher price point until efficiencies of scale/better productio

Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them.

Consumers are complacent about fossil fuels, but they are not complacent about their wallets. Why do we continue to buy fossil fuel cars? Because they are the cheapest technology right now.

Take an economics course. Government mandates HURT ECONOMIES. There is no exception to this rule. The government produces nothing and does not act in the best interest of the people with tax dollars.

As far as your points below:1) yes, and as it becomes cheaper, electric cars will become viable, but they aren't today2) once again, fossil fuels getting more expensive will move us towards electric cars, but today oil provides the cheapest energy and that allows us to use the savings to invest in the next energy source3) Regardless of where the oil comes from, it costs money. Us not buying it from the middle east will not stop terrorism. They will simply sell to China. The problem in the middle east is a lack of education and unfair governments. You are suggesting we bring that here rather than fix the real problem.4) Yes, CO2 is bad for the environment, we need to mitigate the effects of this. However, the effects are HUGELY blown out of proportion, with Al Gore being a major contributor. I suggest that we focus on switching from coal to nuclear, which is economically viable and will reduce carbon output much more than electric cars.

Oh wait, the government is preventing nuclear power plants from being built an operated efficiently... Maybe your theory is flawed after all.

Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of Uranium to go around for quite some time, and with proper breeder-reactors, there's very little waste, but in effect, you're pushing the supply/demand problem down the road a few years.

The second law of thermodynamics says that pushing the problem down the road is the best we can do.

If the to government said it was only going to tax gas as much as it took to keep the environment and research alternative fuels I think many people would be okay with that. The problem is we all know that's not how it would work. First, the money would get diverted to all sorts of non-related projects. Second, the federal government would use it as a power play against the states the way it uses the highway funds now.

Look at cap & trade. The government is licking its chops at this huge potential so

If the to government said it was only going to tax gas as much as it took to keep the environment and research alternative fuels I think many people would be okay with that.

No, you're missing the point. The government should tax gas by enough to offset the cost of the environmental damaged caused by digging it out of the ground, refining it, and burning it. Yes, that's hard to quantify, but you could probably get within an order of magnitude. Being able to shift the tax to green initiatives is just gravy

And we will create the hydrogen by grinding up invisible pink unicorns. Since there is an infinite supply of invisible pink unicorns and they are really easy to grind this will solve all of our energy problems.

What does that mean?? Expensive electricity for EVERYBODY. Not just the owner of the electric light bulb.

With the raise of demand, the environmental requirements will be dropped to compensate for the need to build new power plants fast. By dropping the requirements, we will get power plants that will generate 3 to 4 times more pollution that gas lamps would have generated.

What the hell does that mean? GM doesn't have oil company representatives on their board. If you'd like to see, I suggest you Google search GM's board and check out the board member bios.

Also, if oil companies are stopping GM from bringing electric cars to market, then how do you explain GM betting the ranch on the Volt? Wouldn't GM have *accepted* this argument that electric cars don't make sense, rather than defend their electric car project?

But hey, didn't stop this post from being modded to 5. I guess any paranoia about oil companies automatically gets modded up...